metzelaars_lives

Oh God. Again, if a Biblical literalist won any election, I wouldn't deny the legitimacy of their position; I simply wouldn't vote for them in the first place. And come on man, I've explained it like four times now. I'm really trying to work with you here.

No that's not the case. I don't think Ted Cruz should be ineligible to run for public office. I simply wouldn't vote for him. But again, Ben Carson stated that Muslims should be ineligible to run for President, which I myself would not agree with.

I actually agree with Dwight that this one has run its course. But EJ- I mean Tasker, let me make this extremely clear. No, that is not the case. I think you can be a Christian, like I believe Obama (and even a guy like George Bush for that matter) to be for example, and also not say that, sorry I wouldn't bake gay dudes a wedding cake because of what it says in the Old Testament. Everyone draws their line somewhere. Even those who wouldn't bake a couple of gay dudes a wedding cake in Georgia probably eat shellfish even though eating shellfish is called an abomination more times than being gay is in the Old Testament. So yes, I think you can go to church on Sundays, believe in the undeniably positive principles laid forth by JC and try and use his teachings to help the less fortunate and lead a more virtuous life and at the same time, NOT say that you don't believe in climate change because God wouldn't let it happen or that you believe the Earth to be 5,000 years because of a timeline you can trace back by interpreting the Bible literally or to deny Darwin's theory of evolution simply because of the story of the apple and the talking snake in Genesis. I used Noah's Ark as an example and again, I think it's pertinent: I think you can be a good Christian and at the same time understand that a story like Noah's Ark was meant to be allegorical and didn't actually happen. Is that fair?

So your Uncle, who is both developmentally disabled and smarter than me, takes no issue with you using the word "retard" in your everyday vernacular? I don't believe you. But I digress. Back to the subject at hand, it took me just a few hours into my first foray in the world known as PPP to understand exactly what you're all about. You are a textbook example of the emperor with no clothes if I've ever seen one. 1. You fire off insults that are so beyond rude and obnoxious that only one hiding behind a computer would ever even dare dream of hurling. 2. You make a point to tell everyone how smart you are and how dumb anyone who might disagree with you is in every paragraph that you write. 3. You slide in just enough fifty cent words to make the whole thing kind of work. Kudos- those who don't think for themselves and don't actually delve into the content of what you write are very impressed I'm sure. But let's look at what you actually wrote. In your most recent post, amidst the incredible insults, you question my lack of a response to your assertion that "proper religious dogma" should not be a litmus test for the President (or any public office position for that matter). Problem is, I've addressed this. Like three times. On the previous page. I outlined a clear cut distinction between what I would call a token "hey of course I'm a Christian because I have to be" politician and an "I am going to allow my strict adherence to and literal interpretation of the Old Testament to dictate my sociopolitical beliefs" politician. Of which there are many in this country right now (this is incredibly unique to our country amongst modernized, westernized first world nations in 2015). I would happily vote for the former. I would not vote for the latter. I even outlined specific examples of issues that such politicians in this country have taken blind stances on simply because of their faith. Again, I couldn't have stated my case any clearer. So I'm not sure if you have an issue with reading comprehension or, more likely, you simply glossed over what I wrote and dove straight into your insult-laden tirade. Breathtakingly retarded? That's rich. And oh yeah, I love how in my last response to you, I pretty much wrote, "humor me and answer this question but you won't; instead you'll dodge the question and call me a 'retard' again." Which is EXACTLY what you did! I didn't say the question was contextual to anything or even necessarily pertinent to our discussion (it is though because believing that Noah's Ark literally happened would be a fairly good indicator/litmus test as to which type of Christian you profess to be- one I would or would not vote for). Regardless, I specifically said, "humor me." But again, you won't. I'll look forward to waking up and seeing what new, creative way of calling me a retard you were able to come up with. Good night DC Tom.

I what?

Good question and I will do my best to answer. Every president ever has professed to be a Christian to varying extents, although there is much evidence to suggest that a good many of the founding fathers were atheists. I am not an idiot, contrary to what DC Tom might say, and I realize that part of being president of the United States is telling everyone how Christian you are. Obama? Yeah, Christian. My Mom? Yeah, Christian. They go to church, it makes them feel better, they believe in a lot of the principles particularly in the New Testament. Do they take it literally? Of course not. Does Ted Cruz? Of course he does. He is insane. I'm sure he believes Noah's Ark actually happened. When you believe something like that you allow your faith to dictate your sociopolitical beliefs, which is extremely dangerous. Does Obama do this? No. Did George Bush do this? No. Would Ted Cruz do this if elected? YES. That is why I would not vote for him. Whether you think climate change is real or some sort of hoax, I think we could all agree that it is dangerous for US elected officials (of which there are many and people in other modernized countries are appalled by it and laugh at us) to state that their reasoning for not accepting climate change as scientific fact is that God wouldn't let it happen. Come on man, look above. And I am not saying that the average Christian is as looney as the average Scientologist. I don't think we're too far off on this one.

Thanks man. Good talking to you too. It looks as if this thread has run its course. I'm the idiot. Pile on fellas. You and Dwight in Philly- who has claimed in this very thread that fracking is in fact not a complex issue, is rather a very black and white issue, that nothing has or could ever possibly go wrong from an environmental standpoint as a result of fracking- can ride off into the sunset together. I'm just a simple man incapable of rational thought. And yeah I'm sure your Uncle would appreciate you using that word so- wait not haphazardly, that's right- astutely. I'll choose not to use it. P.S. And if you want to humor me, you can feel free to respond to my question as to which story is more difficult to believe: the Scientology story (I'm sure we've all seen the HBO documentary) or Noah's Ark. Or how about the apple and the talking snake in the garden for that matter, I'll even give you that. But alas, I'm sure you will not answer my question and come back with incredibly vicious, below-the-belt insults, which you know not to be true but probably help you sleep a little better at night. Hysterical, right? That's a fair response. But I think one could make an argument that there are plenty of sects of Christianity that have resembled cults throughout the years. Ever driven through rural Pennsylvania? I would never deny people of faith the ability to govern, that's insane. Every person who's ever run for public office in this country has professed to be of one faith or another. Ironically, Ben Carson himself has said that a Muslim shouldn't be allowed to be president. I don't think that.

Because it speaks to one's reasoning abilities. If someone believes in Scientology OR takes the Old Testament literally, I question their deductive reasoning skills and hence, their ability to govern. James Inhoffe making a snowball in the midst of the warmest winter in recorded history and offering it as proof that climate change does not exist is a perfect example of one who is unfit to govern based largely on his religious beliefs/lack of reasoning. So there is often times a very strong correlation between one's religious beliefs and their sociopolitical beliefs. Paul Ryan (and believe me, Democrats are guilty of this as well) said he was going to pray to decide if he should run for House Speaker. What does that even mean? I don't want a representative of mine to make any decision based on prayer. Do you see the relation there? Is that fair?

You never answered me as to whether you believe Noah's Ark actually happened. And let me ask you this- do you think it's more far-fetched or, we'll call it "looney," to believe what Scientologists believe than to believe that one man gathered up two of every species on Earth, including millions of different kinds of insects, many of them microscopic (and he was certain to find a male and female of each, mind you), and housed them all peacefully on a ship for 40 days while it rained and flooded the Earth. Kind of crazy that like a polar bear didn't go after a lamb or something and the millions and millions of species were able to make it out unscathed, ready to procreate once the storm subsided. And then kangaroos somehow made it from the Middle East to Australia. But yeah that's a harmless belief because you learned it in Sunday School and the guy telling you about it seemed like a reasonable enough fellow, and meanwhile, Scientology is looney. So now you have a peak into my reasoning as to why I think someone who takes the Old Testament literally and bases their governing decisions (climate change couldn't be real because only God could control something like that -James Inhoffe (sp?) amongst many others) on the Old Testament is unfit to lead. But what do I know, I'm just a retard.

Yes you are correct. I believe that a world leader- specifically a leader of a country as vital to the world as the United States- should NOT possess a literal belief in the book of Genesis. Nor would I expect them to believe that Noah's Ark actually happened. I myself do not believe that Noah's Ark actually happened. Do you? And furthermore, how can I "factually" "prove" that I am right for possessing such an opinion? It is just that: an opinion. What fact could one possibly use to prove that they are right or wrong? Would you vote for a Scientologist? I wouldn't. I cannot prove that possessing such a belief is right or wrong. If someone tried to tell me that the Jacksonville Jaguars were the best team in football, I would quickly deduce that not only does this person not know that much about football but it is probably indicative of the fact they don't know much about other things as well- potentially governing- and I would be less inclined to vote for them even if their political beliefs were aligned with mine. I will be curious to hear your response.

Oh OK gotcha. Yeah I'm not that smart so you're not missing out on much. I was one of those idiots who thought EJ Manuel wasn't going to develop into a franchise QB for the Bills. And then this offseason, I was telling everyone that Derek Carr was going to be good but the legions of mental heavyweights told me that he sucked and that they wouldn't trade Manuel for him. Now I'm just a dumb bloke who is encouraged by Taylor's first five starts and thinks he very well may develop into that guy for the Bills. But what would I know anyway? I'm just a simple-minded mental peasant who opts not to use the word "retard." Haha!!! (sarcastic use of smiley face emoji)

Dude, I'm done with this one. EDIT: Actually let me ask you this- would you vote for a guy who was in line with you on most things politically if he was a Scientologist? See I wouldn't.

You are wise my friend. Perhaps someday I will be able to compete in the big heavyweight division and debate with those who think it's still OK to use the word "retard" so haphazardly. And are you alluding only to my posts that veer into politics or are my football rants likewise bereft of facts?

But they got our attention. And they have thusly drawn attention to the issue. So they kind of succeeded in what they sought out to do.

Alright I'm an idiot, you guys win. I guess I'm just one of those poor saps that you like to snipe at from the balcony.

Because in every other modernized, westernized country in the world it would be absolutely insane for that country's leader to not embrace the freaking theory of evolution, that's why.

I don't not know anything about fracking. Again, fracking is a complex issue. For anyone to boldly to declare that it's a no-brainer one way or the other is ignorant. For someone to declare that someone protesting Bank of America, who does not have a great track record as a bank to begin with, is a jackass and has a penchant for eating granola is just dumb.

Looks like he has changed his stance on that from a year or two ago. He does believe that the idea of evolution is propagated by Satan himself though. Super presidential belief. And my shtick is tired? How's that whole EJ Manuel thing workin out for ya?

Sarcasm off: No the common theme is that I was being sarcastic in both threads. Although I did/do care more about the Bills staying in Buffalo than I do about the issue of fracking. The issue of fracking is an entirely complex one. I was more attacking one who would attack someone for believing in and championing such a cause- especially by hurling insults at them including the fact they must enjoy granola and playing the drums. I am not taking a stance as to whether fracking is ultimately good or bad (it certainly has its advantages and it certainly has gone horribly wrong in many instances) but I absolutely respect someone who has the balls to do what those guys did last night. Whether they like granola or not.

Say what? There is a common theme in that post and any posts I've made in this thread.

Hell yeah, now you're back! Drums are the worst, aint they? If you aint shreddin the gee-tar like brother Ted Nugent, you stay away from me and my kin. Hell yeah! This guy probably cares about some dumb mountains in West Virginia over great American jobs where people barely eek by a livin, breathin in soot all day. Hell he probably thinks breathin in soot all day is bad for ya. Makes ya tough, I tell ya.

Never mind then. I thought you were one of us. I will not be sending you that literature.

Buddy we need to talk. You are my kinda guy. Didn't know there were still folks like us left in this once proud nation. Saw some know-it-alls on CNN the other day criticizing Ben Carson for believing the Earth is only 5,000 years old. Makes me sick. Thinkin about moving up to northern Michigan and joining a militia. I have some literature you might be interested in...

Hell yeah! We don't want no science-believing whackos who care about the environment standing in the way of our quest to preserve freedom!

Hell yeah man. Hell yeah. Granola is the worst. And I hope the people who beat em up were a couple of good ol' hot dog-eatin, Bud Light Lime drinkin, Nascar watchin, Bank of America lovin country boys who wouldn't even know what a delicious Quaker Chewy granola bar looks like.